ABBVIE INC: 760 Depakote Product Liability Claims Remain Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Hundreds of lawsuits over alleged injuries arising from use ofDepakote remain pending, AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generallyallege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certaininjuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use ofDepakote. Over ninety percent of the approximately 760 claims arepending in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various otherfederal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory andpunitive damages.

ABBVIE INC: Bid to Dismiss Sidney Hillman Class Suit Granted------------------------------------------------------------AbbVie Inc.'s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the purportedclass action lawsuit commenced by Sidney Hillman Health Center ofRochester, et al., was granted, according to the Company's Form10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney HillmanHealth Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., wasfiled against AbbVie in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefitproviders alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced andCorrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive businesspractice and unjust enrichment laws in connection withreimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012.Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief andattorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted AbbVie's motionto dismiss, without prejudice.

ABBVIE INC: Continues to Defend Testosterone Replacement MDL------------------------------------------------------------AbbVie Inc. continues to defend a multidistrict litigation againstmanufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generallyallege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of testosteronereplacement therapies did not adequately warn about risks ofcertain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and bloodclots. Approximately 3,770 claims are consolidated for pre-trialpurposes in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: TestosteroneReplacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545.Approximately 205 claims are pending in various state courts.Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

ABBVIE INC: Shire Securities Suit Remains Pending in Illinois-------------------------------------------------------------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016, that the lawsuit filed on behalf ofpurchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc securities remainspending.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class actionlawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc(Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, againstAbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging thatthe defendants made and/or are responsible for materialmisstatements in violation of federal securities laws inconnection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. In March2016, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. In May 2016,four individuals filed an amended complaint in the case.

ABBVIE INC: Still Defends Medical Mutual & Allied Services Suits----------------------------------------------------------------AbbVie Inc. continues to defend two lawsuits brought againstmanufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutualof Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against severalmanufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurancecompanies, health benefit providers, and other third party payorswho paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted includeviolations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud anddeceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetarydamages and injunctive relief.

A similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVieInc., et al., was filed in the same court in October 2015 onbehalf of the same putative class members and a putative class ofconsumers.

ALTISOURCE ASSET: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Altisource Asset Management Corporation is still awaiting thecourt's decision on motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled City ofCambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp.,et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaintwas filed in the United States District Court of the VirginIslands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption Cityof Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset ManagementCorp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC,William Charles Erbey and certain officers of AAMC and allegesthat the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing todisclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerningalleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect toAAMC's relationship and transactions with Residential, Altisource,Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest BusinessCorporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen, includingallegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the natureof relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and(ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfairprocess from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The actionseeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to theputative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney'sand other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the onlydefendants who have been served with the complaint.

On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion ofDenver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. OnMay 15, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiringplaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015,and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss.Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. OnJuly 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss theamended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completedon September 3, 2015, and the Company is awaiting a decision fromthe court on the motion.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit. Atthis time, the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcomeof this matter, nor can it estimate the range of possible loss, ifany.

ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Toss "Martin" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Altisource Residential Corporation awaits ruling on theDefendants' motion to dismiss all claims in the action styledMartin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaintwas filed in the United States District Court of the VirginIslands by a purported shareholder of the Company under thecaption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, WilliamCharles Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of theCompany and alleges that the defendants violated federalsecurities laws by, among other things, making materially falsestatements and/or failing to disclose material information to theCompany's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship andtransactions with Altisource Asset Management Corporation, Ocwenand Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These allegedmisstatements and omissions include allegations that thedefendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance onOcwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen,including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans,that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violatingstate and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen'slack of proper internal controls. The complaint also containsallegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documentswere false and misleading because they failed to disclose fullythe entire details of a certain asset management agreement betweenthe Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to thedetriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, amongother things, an award of monetary damages to the putative classin an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other feesand expenses.

In May 2015, two of the Company's purported shareholders filedcompeting motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiffand for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently,opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purportedshareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015,the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to belead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amendedcomplaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claimsin the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20,2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of themotion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends tovigorously defend the action. At this time, the Company is notable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can itestimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Altisource Residential Corporation is a Maryland real estateinvestment trust focused on acquiring, owning and managing single-family rental properties throughout the United States. TheCompany conducts substantially all of its activities through itswholly owned subsidiary, Altisource Residential, L.P., and itssubsidiaries.

On August 31, 2016, pursuant to the terms and conditions of theAgreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 26, 2016 (as amended,the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Apollo Commercial RealEstate Finance, Inc. (the "Company"), Apollo Residential Mortgage,Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.,a Maryland corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company("Merger Sub"), AMTG merged with and into the Company, with theCompany continuing as the surviving entity in the merger (the"Merger").

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders amongother things, consolidating the three actions under the caption InRe Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, CaseNo.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Cragocomplaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaintincludes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendantsthe Company, the Board, Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance,Inc. (or, ARI), Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. (or, Merger Sub), Apolloand Athene Holdings LTD. (or, Athene) and alleges, among otherthings, that the members of the Board breached their fiduciaryduties to the Company's stockholders and that the other corporatedefendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches. Theoperative complaint further alleges, among other things, that theproposed First Merger involves inadequate consideration, was theresult of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includesunreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly precludecompeting offers. It also alleges that the transactions withAthene are unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleadingdisclosures and omits certain material information. The operativecomplaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposedclass, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctiverelief, including enjoining or rescinding the First Merger,unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys'and other fees and costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court astipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaintsare without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Awaits February 7 Conference in "Moses" Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., awaits initial conference scheduledfor February 7, 2017, in the lawsuit initiated by Susan Moses,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

As previously reported in the 2015 Form 10-K, on April 22, 2014,Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a shareholder of Apple REITSeven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("AppleEight"), now part of the Company, filed a class action against theCompany and several individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven andApple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additionalshares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP")between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al.v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG)).

On March 9, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Orderdismissing all claims. On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a SecondAmended Class Action Complaint asserting a breach of contractclaim. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complainton April 29, 2015 and briefing on the motion was completed on May27, 2015. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied defendants'Motion to Dismiss the breach of contract claim and dismissed theclaim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fairdealing. Defendants filed their Answer on Oct. 14, 2016 and aninitial conference is scheduled for February 7, 2017.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit andintends to defend this case vigorously. At this time, the Companycannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings orprovide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range ofloss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that haselected to be treated as a real estate investment trust forfederal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REITthat invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in thelodging sector, in the United States. As of September 30, 2016,the Company owned 236 hotels with an aggregate of 30,299 roomslocated in 33 states.

APPLE HOSPITALITY: Says DCG&T Settlement Did Not Impact Finances----------------------------------------------------------------Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement inthe lawsuit filed by DCG&T, et al., has been effectuated and didnot impact the Company's financial position.

As previously reported in the 2015 Form 10-K, on January 31, 2014,two shareholders of the Company commenced a purported class actionagainst the Company and its directors (the "Defendants") in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia(DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No. 3:14cv67, E.D. Va.).

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the claimsthat remained and the Court approved the settlement by order datedSeptember 15, 2015 (the "Order"). The settlement is among theremaining Defendants (the former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. board ofdirectors) and certain former Apple REIT Nine, Inc. shareholdersand does not directly involve the Company. A former shareholderwho objected to the settlement appealed the Order approving thesettlement to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and plaintiffscross-appealed the former shareholder's standing to object to thesettlement. On May 13, 2016, the Fourth Circuit dismissed theformer shareholder's appeal and the time period to appeal thatdismissal has now passed. The settlement was subsequentlyeffectuated and did not impact the Company's financial position.

Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., is a Virginia corporation that haselected to be treated as a real estate investment trust forfederal income tax purposes. The Company is a self-advised REITthat invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in thelodging sector, in the United States. As of September 30, 2016,the Company owned 236 hotels with an aggregate of 30,299 roomslocated in 33 states.

ARC DOCUMENT: Paid $1-Mil. to Settle Labor Suit in California-------------------------------------------------------------ARC Document Solutions, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it settled thelawsuit commenced by a former employee and paid $1 million.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalfof a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees whowork or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. andAmerican Reprographics Company in the State of California at anytime from October 21, 2006 through the settlement date, filed anaction against the Company in the Superior Court of California forthe County of Orange. The complaint alleged, among other things,that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieuthereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) thatthose practices also violate the California Business andProfessions Code. The relief sought included damages, restitution,penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such otherrelief as the court deems proper.

On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in a private mediationsession with claimants' counsel which did not result in resolutionof the claim. Subsequent to the mediation session, the mediatorissued a proposal that was accepted by both parties.

In the second quarter of 2016, the Company settled with thedefendants and paid $1.0 million, which had been accrued as ofDecember 31, 2015.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc., is a leading document solutionsprovider to architectural, engineering, construction, andfacilities management professionals, while also providing documentsolutions to businesses of all types. ARC offers a variety ofservices including: Construction Document Information Management,Managed Print Services, and Archive and Information Management.In addition, ARC also sells Equipment and Supplies. The Companyconducts its operations through its wholly-owned operatingsubsidiary, ARC Document Solutions, LLC, a Texas limited liabilitycompany, and its affiliates.

AUDI AMERICA: "Greenfield" Suit Alleges Engine Emission Cover-up----------------------------------------------------------------Keith Greenfield and Paul Sherry, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Audi of America, LLCand Audi AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-12304 (D. Mass.,November 16, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctiverelief in the form of a recall or replacement of affected vehiclesas well as costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement and penaltiesand other relief for breach of warranties of implied warranty,fraudulent concealment and violations of the Magnuson-MossWarranty Act, Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act aswell as unfair and deceptive trade practices act of various statesand the District of Columbia.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component intheir gasoline engine called a defeat device that allegedly turnson the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it offduring regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant toemission standards set by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing underGerman law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,Germany. Audi of America, LLC is a Delaware limited liabilitycompany with its principal place of business located at 2200Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Audi America isa wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Audi AG.

Greenfield leased a new 2015 Audi A8L from Audi Westwood inWestwood, MA, while Sherry purchased a used 2014 Audi A6 from HerbChambers in Boston, Massachusetts.

AUDI AMERICA: Cheated on Emission Testing Per "Holcom" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Monica and Bruce Holcomb, Ted Schrubbe, Geert Wenes, BrianPerelmuter, Jason Capizzi, Ralph May, William Barrois, CurtisHurst, and Jared Standiford, Plaintiff, v. Audi of America, LLCand Audi AG, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06648 (N.D. Cal.,November 16, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent injunctiverelief in the form of a recall or replacement of affected vehiclesas well as costs, restitution, damages, disgorgement and penaltiesand other relief for breach of warranties of implied warranty,fraudulent concealment and violations of the Magnuson-MossWarranty Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as well unfairand deceptive trade practices acts of various states and theDistrict of Columbia.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component intheir gasoline engine called a defeat device that allegedly turnson the emission controls during mandated testing but turns it offduring regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant toemission standards set by the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Plaintiffs are owners of Audi vehicles containing such defect.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing underGerman law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,Germany. Audi of America, LLC is a Delaware limited liabilitycompany with its principal place of business located at 2200Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Audi America isa wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Audi AG.

CARING PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Lyudmyla Konstantynovska, individually and on behalf of all otherpersons similarly situated who were employed by CaringProfessionals, Inc. v. Caring Professionals, Inc., Case No.159883/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 23, 2016), is brought againstthe Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for allhours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week.

Caring Professionals, Inc. is engaged in providing nursing andhome health aide services at the residences of its clients.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: $75K Claim Filed on Behalf of "West" Suit Class-----------------------------------------------------------------The attorneys of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Westand Stormy Hopson, individually and as class representatives onbehalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,L.L.C., filed a claim on behalf of the putative class claiming inexcess of $75,000 in Chaparral Energy, Inc.'s Chapter 11 cases,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On February 18, 2016, an alleged class actionwas filed against us, as well as several other operators in theDistrict Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma ("WestCase"), alleging claims on behalf of named plaintiffs and allsimilarly situated persons having an insurable real propertyinterest in Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Okfuskee, Oklahoma,Pontotoc, Pottawatomie and Seminole Counties, Oklahoma (the "ClassArea"). The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conductedby us and the other defendants have induced or triggeredearthquakes in the Class Area. The plaintiffs are asking the courtto require the defendants to reimburse plaintiffs and classmembers for earthquake insurance premiums from 2011 through afuture date defined as the time at which the court determinesthere is no longer a risk that our activities induce or triggerearthquakes, as well as attorney fees and costs and other relief.The plaintiffs have not asked for damages related to actualproperty damage which may have occurred. We have responded to thepetition, denied the allegations and raised a number ofaffirmative defenses. At this time, a class has not been certifiedand discovery has not yet commenced."

"On March 18, 2016, the case was removed to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under theClass Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On May 20, 2016, we filed aNotice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, informing the court that wehad filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of theUnited States Bankruptcy Code."

"On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaintadding additional defendants and increasing the Class Area to 25Central Oklahoma counties. Although we are named as a defendant,the Amended Complaint expressly limits its claims against us tothose asserted in the original petition unless and until theautomatic stay is lifted. Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof ofclaim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excess of$75,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' claims, disputes that thecase meets the requirements for a class action, disputes theremedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and isvigorously defending the case.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in theacquisition, exploration, development, production and operation ofoil and natural gas properties. The Company's properties arelocated primarily in Oklahoma and Texas. The Company is currentlyoperating its business as debtor in possession in accordance withthe applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Court Ruling in "Donelson" Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc., awaits ruling with respect to its filingof Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy informing the Court in thelawsuit captioned Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf ofthemselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., of the Company's filing of voluntarybankruptcy petitions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said: "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action wasfiled against us, as well as several other operators in OsageCounty, in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the namedplaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners andsurface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drillingpermits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without theenvironmental studies required under the National EnvironmentalProtection (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recoveryfor trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Reliefsought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drillingpermits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study voidab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the classmembers, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitivedamages."

"On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against thefederal agencies named as defendants, and therefore against alldefendants, as an improper challenge under NEPA and theAdministrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffsfiled a motion to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacatethe judgment, arguing the court does have jurisdiction to hear theclaims and dismissal of the federal defendants does not requiredismissal of the oil company defendants. The plaintiffs also fileda motion to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencieswhich the court found in the dismissed complaint. Severaldefendants have filed briefs objecting to plaintiffs' motions."

"On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion ofBankruptcy, informing the court that we had filed voluntarypetitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United StatesBankruptcy Code, and has not responded to the plaintiffs' motions.The court has not yet ruled. As the plaintiffs in the Donelsoncase did not file proofs of claim either for the putative class orthe putative class representatives, we anticipate any monetaryliability related to this claim will be discharged."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and disputes thatthe case meets the requirements for a class action.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in theacquisition, exploration, development, production and operation ofoil and natural gas properties. The Company's properties arelocated primarily in Oklahoma and Texas. The Company is currentlyoperating its business as debtor in possession in accordance withthe applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Naylor Farms' Bid to Lift Stay-----------------------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it awaits a courtruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to lift the automatic stayregarding the pending motion for summary judgment in the lawsuittitled Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as classrepresentative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

The Company said: "On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action wasfiled against us in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging thatwe improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paidto plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized inthe petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located inOklahoma. The purported class includes non-governmental royaltyinterest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate inOklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims,including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek termination ofleases, recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitivedamages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. We haveresponded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the allegations andraised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a motion for classcertification in October 2015. In addition, the plaintiffs filed amotion for summary judgment asking the court to determine as amatter of law that natural gas is not marketable until it is inthe condition and location to enter an interstate pipeline.Responsive briefs to both motions were filed in the fourth quarterof 2015. The court has not ruled on the motions, and no hearinghas been scheduled."

"On May 20, 2016, we filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy,informing the court that we had filed voluntary petitions forrelief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Inresponse, on May 23, 2016, the court issued an orderadministratively closing the case, subject to reopening dependingon the disposition of the bankruptcy proceedings."

"On July 22, 2016, attorneys for the putative class filed a motionin the Bankruptcy Court asking the court to lift the automaticstay and allow the case to proceed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Western District of Oklahoma. We did not object tolifting the automatic stay with regard to this case for thelimited purpose of allowing the District Court to rule on thepending motion for class certification, and the classcertification issue is under consideration by the trial judge inthe United States District Court for the Western District ofOklahoma. The plaintiffs' motion to lift the automatic stayregarding the pending motion for summary judgment is pending inthe Bankruptcy Court and is scheduled for a hearing on Nov. 22,2016. The plaintiffs have indicated, if the class is certified,they seek damages in excess of $5,000 which may increase with thepassage of time, a majority of which would be comprised ofinterest. In addition to filing claims on behalf of the namedplaintiffs and associated parties, plaintiffs' attorneys filed aproof of claim on behalf of the putative class claiming in excessof $150,000 in our Chapter 11 Cases."

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations, disputes thecase meets the requirements for class certification, andanticipates objecting to the claims.

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in theacquisition, exploration, development, production and operation ofoil and natural gas properties. The Company's properties arelocated primarily in Oklahoma and Texas. The Company is currentlyoperating its business as debtor in possession in accordance withthe applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: "Dodson" Plaintiffs Didn't File Proofs of Claim-----------------------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Plaintiffs inthe lawsuit captioned Amanda Dodson, individually and as classrepresentative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., did not file proofs of claim either forthe putative class or the putative class representative.

The Company said: "On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson, filed acomplaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with an allegation similar to thoseasserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-productiondeductions, and include claims for breach of contract, fraud,breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims andseek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of thealleged class. The alleged class includes non-governmental royaltyinterest owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate inOklahoma. We have responded to the Dodson petition, denied theallegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At thetime we filed our Bankruptcy Petitions, a class had not beencertified and discovery had not yet commenced. As the plaintiffsin the Dodson case did not file proofs of claim either for theputative class or the putative class representative, we anticipateany liability related to this claim will be discharged."

Chaparral Energy, Inc., and its subsidiaries, are involved in theacquisition, exploration, development, production and operation ofoil and natural gas properties. The Company's properties arelocated primarily in Oklahoma and Texas. The Company is currentlyoperating its business as debtor in possession in accordance withthe applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Defendants have systematically ignored the requirements of theFLSA and NYLL by failing to pay Plaintiff owed overtime pay.

City Ironsmith provides professional contracting service in steelstructure erection and framing for commercial industrial andwarehouse building projects. It also offers iron work for allkinds of steel stairs, railing, fence, and fire escape.

DC2 GROUP: Faces "Antoncecchi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime----------------------------------------------------------------Alex Antoncecchi, on behalf of himself and others similarlysituated v. DC2 Group Inc. d/b/a DC Group - When Power IsCritical, Case No. BC642184 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016),is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtimewages in violation of the California Labor Law.

DC2 Group Inc. provides reliable uninterruptible power supply(UPS) backup power service and maintenance to clients throughoutthe United States and Canada.

EMERGENT CAPITAL: Illinois Court Terminates "Jennings" Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The Court terminated the purported class action lawsuit filed byKenneth Jennings against Emergent Capital, Inc., the Company saidin its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

A complaint was filed against the Company's subsidiary, styledKenneth Jennings v. Washington Square Financial, LLC d/b/aImperial Structured Settlements ("Washington Square"), and waspending in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois. The plaintiff sought, in a purported classaction, to represent all individuals who sold all or a part of astructured settlement annuity to Washington Square under theIllinois Structured Settlement Protections Act (the "IllinoisAct"), where the underlying annuity contract contained an anti-assignment clause, and where a court issued an order under theIllinois Act approving the transaction. The complaint sought,among other things, a declaration that all such transactions arevoid and compensatory and punitive damages.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court terminated the casepursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice,which had been filed by the plaintiff.

Incorporated in Florida, Emergent Capital, Inc., through itssubsidiary companies, owns a portfolio of 623 life insurancepolicies, also referred to as life settlements, with a fair valueof $483.4 million and an aggregate death benefit of approximately$3.0 billion at September 30, 2016. The Company primarily earnsincome on these policies from changes in their fair value andthrough death benefits.

FIESTA RESTAURANT: Units Settle Demand by Assistant Managers------------------------------------------------------------Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that itssubsidiaries reached a settlement with seven named individuals anda proposed collective action class in a demand letter brought onbehalf of assistant managers.

On September 30, 2016, prior to any suit being filed, PolloTropical reached a settlement with seven named individuals and aproposed collective action class that will allow current andformer assistant managers to receive notice and opt-in to thesettlement. Pollo Tropical denies any liability or unlawfulconduct. The Company has recorded a charge of $0.8 million tocover the estimated costs related to the settlement, includingestimated payments to individuals that opt-in to the settlement,premium payments to named individuals, attorneys' fees for theindividuals' counsel, and related settlement administration costs.The charge does not include legal fees incurred by Pollo Tropicalin defending the action. The settlement, which is subject toapproval by an arbitrator and a judicial body, will result indismissal with prejudice for the named individuals and allindividuals that opt-in to the settlement.

The action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidateddamages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtimewages and compensation for hours worked, but not recorded or paid.

Fisher Homes is a construction firm that has been developingproperties for more than two decades.

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee performing localtransport duties within the last three years, i.e. from May 2015through October 2015, for Defendant in Oconee County, Georgia.During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff, and thosesimilarly situated employees, regularly worked more than 40 hoursa week, but were not paid time and one-half his regular rate ofpay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during oneor more work weeks.

Georgia Medical Transportation provides medical transport servicesto Georgians in need through a dispatch center, fleet of vehiclesand a team of trained drivers.

GoPro Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executiveoffices located at 3000 Clearview Way, San Mateo, California94402. GoPro develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras andaccessories in the United States and internationally. TheCompany's cameras are designed primarily for filming whileimmersed in action, such as outdoor or extreme sports. On October23, 2016, following months of delays, GoPro released the Karmadrone, a compact, foldable drone designed for aerial photographyusing GoPro's cameras.

GoPro allegedly failed to disclose that the Karma drones wereprone to losing power midflight, causing them to fall out of thesky and that the Company had thus significantly overstated theutility of and likely customer demand for the Karma drone.November 8, 2016, post-market, GoPro announced the recall of theapproximately 2,500 Karma drones purchased by consumers since theproduct's release, advising that the Company had discovered thatKarma units were prone to losing power during operation. On thisnews, GoPro's share price fell $0.45, or 4.14%, to close at $10.41on November 9, 2016. Plaintiff is a shareholder of GoPro stocksand lost substantially.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Caseconcerns a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The Plaintiff originally sought torepresent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri)who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims ofviolation of various state consumer laws, money had and received,and unjust enrichment.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- Appendix is due on January 3, 2017;

-- Brief of Appellants H&R Block, HRB Tax Group and HRB Technology is due on January 3, 2017; and

-- Appellee/cross Appellant brief is due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellant's brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Perras, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated, is represented by:

HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Faces Windham Suit Over Breach of Contract--------------------------------------------------------------Windham Contracting Corp., on behalf of itself and on behalf ofall others entitled to share in the funds received by HaileyDevelopment Group, LLC, as Trustee, in connection with theimprovement of the real property known as 78 Irving Place, NewYork, New York Block: 874; Lot: 60 v. Hailey Development Group,LLC, Richard Petrosa, Mary Filocamo, Irving Place Investor LLC,Connectone Bank, US LBM LLC, GMC Contracting & Estimating Service,Inc. and "John Doe No. 1" through "John Doe No., 1 00, Case No.656206/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., November 29, 2016), is an action fordamages as a result of the Defendants' breach of contract,specifically by failing and refusing to pay for certain labor andmaterials provided to, as well as other construction materials,equipment and labor supplied by the Trust Fund Beneficiaries atthe Project located at 78 having Place, New York, New York, Block:874; Lot: 60, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund moniesfor non-trust purposes.

Hailey Development Group, LLC is a construction company with itsprincipal place of business located at 236 Fifth A venue, 11thFloor, New York, New York 10001.

Irving Place Investor LLC is a private equity firm focused onleveraged buyout and growth capital investments in middle-marketcompanies across a range of industries.

HARDWOOD FLOORING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Lilia Maldonado, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated, and on behalf of the general public v. Hardwood FlooringLiquidators, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.BC642170 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), is brought againstthe Defendants for failure to compensate its non-exemptCalifornia employees with all wages earned during the course ofemployment including but not limited to, all minimum and overtimewages, failure to provide them with accurately itemized wagestatements, failure to compensate them with all premium wages formissed, denied and unauthorized meal and rest periods, and failureto pay them all wages due and owing upon separation of employment.

HERTZ CORP: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hecht" Class Suit------------------------------------------------------------David Hecht filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuitentitled David Hecht v. Hertz Corp., Case No. 2-16-cv-01485, inthe U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Contract Actions."

The appellate case is captioned as David Hecht v. Hertz Corp.,Case No. 16-4138, in the United States Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID HECHT, individually and on behalf ofothers similarly situated, is represented by:

HORIZON PHARMA: Continues to Defend "Schaffer" Suit in N.Y.-----------------------------------------------------------Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company continues to defend aconsolidated securities lawsuit in New York, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class actionlawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., CaseNo. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., CaseNo. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York against the Companyand certain of the Company's current and former officers (the"Officer Defendants"). On March 24, 2016, the court consolidatedthe two actions under Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al. OnJune 3, 2016, the court appointed Locals 302 and 612 of theInternational Union of Operating Engineers-Employers ConstructionIndustry Retirement Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fundfor Northern California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton SucharowLLP as lead counsel.

On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiffAutomotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidatedcomplaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016,including additional current and former officers, the Company'sBoard of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwritersinvolved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the"Underwriter Defendants") as defendants. The plaintiffs allegethat certain of the Company and the Officer Defendants violatedsections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about,among other things: (a) the Company's financial performance, (b)the Company's business prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c)the Company's sales and promotional practices, and (d) theCompany's design, implementation, performance, and risksassociated with the Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. Theplaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the DirectorDefendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11,12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the"Securities Act") in connection with the Company's April 2015public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an awardof damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the putativeclass, including a reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys'fees. The defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond tothe amended consolidated complaint is November 14, 2016.

HORIZON PHARMA: Faces 2 Suits Over Acquisition of Raptor Pharma---------------------------------------------------------------Horizon Pharma Public Limited Company is facing two lawsuits inDelaware arising from its acquisition of Raptor PharmaceuticalCorp., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Between October 5 and October 7, 2016, two complaints (captionedLavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-00901, and Jordan v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No.16-cv-00913) were filed in the United States District Court forthe District of Delaware. Both actions were filed against Raptorand each member of Raptor's board of directors. The Company andMisneach Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,were named as defendants in the Lavrenov action, but not theJordan action. The actions were brought by purported stockholdersof Raptor, on their own behalf and as a putative class of Raptorstockholders, and assert causes of action under Sections 14 and 20of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Lavrenovaction also asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding andabetting claims under Delaware law. The complaints allege, amongother things, that the process leading up to the Raptoracquisition was inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed byRaptor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")omits certain material information, which allegedly renders theinformation disclosed materially misleading. The complaints seek,among other things, to enjoin the Raptor acquisition, or in theevent the Raptor acquisition is consummated, to recover moneydamages.

On October 17, 2016, Raptor filed an amended Schedule 14D-9 withthe SEC. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to preliminarily enjointhe Raptor acquisition, which was completed on October 25, 2016.

According to the complaint, Defendants' failure to pay Mr. Liz andMr. Hector Miculax an amount at least equal to the federal or NewYork state minimum wages in effect during relevant time periodswas willful, and lacked a good faith basis. The Plaintiffs werepaid in cash throughout their employment, and they received nopaystubs or wage statements with their pay. In addition, theDefendants failed to pay plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hoursworked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA,the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York StateDepartment of Labor regulations.

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Appeals Cert. of Classes in "Shahinian" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc.,filed an appeal from the District Court's order granting in partand denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certificationin the lawsuit titled HRAYR SHAHINIAN, M.D., F.A.C.S., anindividual, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, et al. v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, a DelawareCorporation; and HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation,Case No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.).

The appellate case is captioned as KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, aDelaware Corporation, and HALYARD HEALTH, INC., a DelawareCorporation, Defendants-Petitioners v. HRAYR SHAHINIAN, M.D.,F.A.C.S., an individual; on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, Case No. 16-80171, inthe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appellants would like the Ninth Circuit to determine whetherthe District Court manifestly erred:

1. in applying a class-wide presumption of reliance as to the Plaintiff's omission claim in the face of clear evidence that class members were not uniformly exposed to the challenged advertising at the point of sale; and

2. because it failed to recognize that most gown purchases (more than 70%) were governed by multiple arms-length contracts, which inject a host of predominant individual issues into the case concerning choice of law, liability, defenses, and damages.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, thePlaintiffs sought certification of three classes:

1. California Damages/Restitution Class: All entities and natural persons in California who purchased the MicroCool Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including January 11, 2015 (the "California Damages/Restitution Class").

2. California Injunctive Relief Class: All entities and natural persons in California who purchased the MicroCool Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including January 11, 2015 (the "California Injunctive Relief Class").

3. Nationwide Issue Based Class: A nationwide class of all entities and natural persons who purchased the MicroCool Gowns from February 12, 2012 up to and including January 11, 2015, for the resolution of the specific issue of whether Defendants misrepresented during the time period February 12, 2012 up to and including January 11, 2015 the liquid barrier claims relating to the MicroCool Gowns (e.g. whether the gowns met the AAMI Level 4 standard) on the gowns' packaging and in their marketing materials and/or whether Defendants concealed material facts relating thereto.

District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee certified the CaliforniaDamages/Restitution Class and the California Injunctive ReliefClass but only to the extent that they involve the fraudulentconcealment claim and the Unfair Competition Law claim basedthereon. The Court declines to certify the Nationwide Issue BasedClass.

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: LaCross Appeals Ruling in Suit v. USDC-AZP-----------------------------------------------------------------Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira and Matthew Lofton filed an appealagainst the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Patrick LaCross, et al. v.USDC-AZP, Case No. 16-73670, in the United States Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit.

The issues arose from their lawsuit styled Patrick LaCross, et al.v. Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00990-JJT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, DistrictCourt Judge John J. Tuchi granted the Defendants' motion to compelarbitration and stay action the case.

In their original complaint, the Plaintiffs brought a complaint onbehalf of a putative class of truck drivers in California statecourt, claiming that the Defendants illegally classified them asindependent contractors under the California Labor Code. TheDefendants removed the action to the United States District Courtfor the Central District of California based on diversityjurisdiction.

On May 28, 2015, District Judge Bernal granted the Defendants'motion to transfer case to the District of Arizona. On Jan. 22,2016, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, raising 13claims pursuant to California law. The Defendants filed a motionto compel arbitration and stay action.

Judge John J. Tuchi granted the Defendants' motion to compelarbitration and stay action and compelling arbitration of thearbitrability of the Plaintiffs' claim. The parties shall file ajoint status report within one week of the arbitrator's decisionon arbitrability or by January 6, 2017, whichever is sooner.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira and MatthewLofton are represented by:

LANDRY'S INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break-------------------------------------------------------------Zachary Sugrue, an individual, and on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated v. Landry's Inc. and Does 1 through 10,inclusive, Case No. BC641552 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 23, 2016),is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employeeswith meal and rest periods and failure to pay them for missed mealand rest periods.

Landry's Inc. is a privately owned, multi-brand dining,hospitality, entertainment and gaming corporation that owns andoperates more than 500 properties, including more than 40 uniquebrands.

Mark Shaffer brought the collective action against Defendantbecause it failed to pay the minimum wage required by the FairLabor Standards Act (FLSA). Indeed, Defendant is violating theFLSA's minimum wage provision in multiple ways. For example,Defendant is failing to adhere to the "tip credit" requirements.The Defendant is also failing to remit to its tipped employeestheir net tips received after converting to cash all tips leftthrough credit card and debit cards, says the complaint.

The class of similarly situated employees consists of all persons,during the period November 22, 2013 to the present that Defendantcharged a fee for converting their tips into cash or for whomDefendant claimed a tip credit.

Defendant owns and operates restaurants in Travis County, BexarCounty, and surrounding counties in the Western District of Texas,and throughout Texas. These restaurants are called "Perry'sSteakhouse & Grille", "Perry & Sons Market & Grille" and "Perry'sItalian Grille".

LINDE LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Hobson" Class Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Linde, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuitstyled Brock Hobson v. Linde, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01984-PA-DTB,in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Brock Hobson v. Linde, LLC,Case No. 16-80174, in the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent BROCK HOBSON, on behalf of himself, all othersimilarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, isrepresented by:

LIVE NATION: Has Accrued $14.8MM for Costs in Ticketing Suit Deal-----------------------------------------------------------------Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., has accrued $14.8 million for theremaining costs associated with a settlement resolving theconsumer litigation over ticketing fees, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, all appeals relating to a settlement agreementreached by the plaintiffs and Ticketmaster in respect of aticketing fees consumer class action litigation matter originallyfiled in October 2003 against Ticketmaster were dismissed, thusresolving this matter and allowing the implementation of the termsof the settlement. The Company has funded a portion of thesettlement primarily related to the plaintiffs' attorney fees.Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledgedany violations of law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $14.8 million,its best estimate of the probable remaining costs associated withthe settlement, which was recorded in prior years. The Companysays the calculation of this liability is based in part upon anestimated redemption rate. Any difference between the Company'sestimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate itexperiences will impact the final settlement amount; however, theCompany does not expect this difference to be material.

MAJOR LEAGUE: Payne Appeals Decision in Suit Over Safety Netting----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith filed an appeal from acourt ruling in their lawsuit entitled Gail Payne, et al. v.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA Major League Baseball,et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-03229-YGR, in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Oakland A'sfan Gail Payne and two other named plaintiffs said in theirlawsuit that many baseball players allow their families to sitonly in sections protected by netting or "way up" in the stands,where foul balls and shards from shattered bats are less likely tohit them.

A sharply hit foul ball can reach peak forces of 8,300 poundsafter leaving a bat, enough to stop a small car, the Plaintiffssay. Fans, often children, have been blinded and had their skullsfractured by stray balls and bats, according to the lawsuit. A 14-year-old boy died at Dodger Stadium after being hit by a ball in1970.

The appellate case is captioned as Gail Payne, et al. v. OFFICE OFTHE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, DBA Major League Baseball, et al.,Case No. 16-17131, in the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 28, 2016;

-- Transcript must be ordered by December 19, 2016;

-- Transcript is due on January 17, 2017;

-- Appellants Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith's opening brief is due on February 27, 2017;

MATCH GROUP: Defends Consolidated IPO-Related Suit in N.D. Texas----------------------------------------------------------------Match Group, Inc., is defending a consolidated lawsuit arisingfrom its initial public offering in November 2015, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2016.

As previously disclosed in the Company's annual report on Form10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, and theCompany's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended March 31, 2016, on February 26, 2016, a putative nationwideclass action was filed in federal court in Texas against theCompany, five of its officers and directors, and twelveunderwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November2015. See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). Thecomplaint alleged that the Company's registration statement andprospectus issued in connection with its initial public offeringwere materially false and misleading given their failure to statethat: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss its revenueprojection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU(as defined in "Item 2-Management's Discussion and Analysis ofFinancial Condition and Results of Operations-General-Key Terms")would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31,2015. The complaint asserted that these alleged failures totimely disclose material information caused the Company's stockprice to drop after the announcement of its earnings for thequarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint pleaded claimsunder the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of materialfact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registrationstatement, the prospectus, and related communications in violationof Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendantsonly, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company'salleged violations. The complaint sought class certification,damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint wasfiled in the same court against the same defendants by a differentnamed plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District ofTexas). On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued anorder granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case toJudge Lindsay, who was presiding over the earlier-filed Steincase. On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholdersin the Company and their respective law firms filed motionsseeking appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaisoncounsel for the putative class. On April 28, 2016, the Courtissued orders: (i) consolidating the Chan case into the Steincase, (ii) approving the parties' stipulation to extend thedefendants' time to respond to the complaint until after the Courthas appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putativeclass and has set a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of aconsolidated complaint and the defendants' response to thatpleading, and (iii) referring the various motions for appointmentof lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putativeclass to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination. OnJune 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing twolead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, anda third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. In accordancewith this order, the consolidated case is now captioned MaryMcCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a jointstatus report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of aconsolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of thedefendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidatedcomplaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an orderapproving the parties' proposed schedule.

On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, theplaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The newpleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements oromissions concerning the Company's Non-dating business. Thedefendants were to file motions to dismiss the amendedconsolidated complaint on or before November 8, 2016.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit arewithout merit and will defend vigorously against them.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. The Company operatesa portfolio of over 45 brands, including Match, OkCupid,PlentyOfFish, Tinder, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, BlackPeopleMeet andLoveScout24 (formerly known as FriendScout24), each designed toincrease the Company's users' likelihood of finding a romanticconnection.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, thePlaintiffs also appealed a decision in the lawsuit to the NinthCircuit.

In their second amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that theDefendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act bysending "unsolicited advertisements" by fax. On August 22, 2016,District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam denied the Plaintiffs'motion for class certification.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- November 25, 2016 -- Mediation Questionnaire due;

-- December 16, 2016 -- Transcript shall be ordered;

-- January 17, 2017 -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter;

-- February 24, 2017 -- Appellants' opening brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1;

-- March 27, 2017 -- Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and

-- The optional appellants' reply brief shall be filed and served within 14 days of service of the appellees' brief, pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.

MERCURY CASUALTY: Sued in Cal. Over Depreciation Method Policies----------------------------------------------------------------Donna Marie Meschi, Junior Eddy Joseph, Vincent Andrew Meschi, andCarole, Gianfermo guardian adlitem for Dominique Chesere Joseph,on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated personsv. Mercury Casualty Company, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 16-cv-02607 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016), is an action fordamages as a proximate result of Mercury's use of an illegaldepreciation method, which substantially reduces its claimliabilities and increases its profits, by applying high levels ofdepreciation when adjusting contents claims, without regard to theactual, physical condition of the damaged property.

Mercury Casualty Company operates an automobile and propertyinsurance company which conduct business in the state ofCalifornia.

Defendants operate a car wash located at 1290 Woodfield Road,Rockville Centre, New York 11570 where Plaintiffs were employed ascar wash attendants, who regularly worked over 40 hours per week,but were not compensated properly for the overtime hours worked.

On November 20, 2016, Plaintiff gathered to pray and to peacefullyprotest the continued construction of Dakota Access Pipeline andthe ongoing blockage of the public highway 1806. Police officersfrom the Morton County Sheriff's Department, City of Mandan PoliceDepartment and Stutsman County Sheriffs Department deployedteargas and fired water cannons to disperse them.

MOUNT SINAI: "Latner" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned Daniel Latner, individually andon behalf of others similarly situated v. Mount Sinai HealthSystem, Inc. and West Park Medical Group, P.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-10502, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York (Foley Square). The District CourtClerk assigned Case No. 1:16-mc-00429-AKH to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a health care company that offers highquality medicine and surgery services.

NATIONAL INTERSTATE: Signs MOU to Settle "Solak" Suit Over Merger-----------------------------------------------------------------National Interstate Corporation entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding to resolve the putative class action lawsuitinitiated by John Solak challenging the proposed merger withAmerican Insurance Company, according to the Company's Form 8-Kfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016.

As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed byNational Interstate Corporation (the "Company"), an Ohiocorporation, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"SEC") on October 11, 2016 (as amended, the "Proxy Statement")pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as ofJuly 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among GreatAmerican Insurance Company ("Parent"), an Ohio corporation, GAICAlloy, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), an Ohio corporation, and the Company,following the announcement of the execution of the MergerAgreement, the lawsuit captioned Solak v. Consolino, Case no.5:16-cv-02470, was filed in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) against theCompany, the members of the Company's board of directors, AFG,Parent and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"). Pursuant to the MergerAgreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company,the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub will cease and theCompany will continue its corporate existence under Ohio law asthe surviving corporation in the merger. Parent, which currentlyowns approximately 51% of the total number of outstanding commonshares of the Company, will own 100% of the equity interests ofthe Company following the transactions contemplated by the MergerAgreement.

The complaint alleges class and derivative claims under Sections13(e), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and rules andregulations promulgated thereunder, and for breaches of fiduciaryduties by the members of the Company's Board of Directors and byParent as an alleged controlling shareholder. Plaintiff allegesthe consideration to be received by shareholders in the merger isinadequate, that the process used in entering the Merger Agreementwas flawed, and that the Merger Agreement contains preclusive andonerous deal protection devices that limit the pursuit of superiorproposals and alternatives. The complaint also alleges that theinitial proxy statement, and the first amendment thereto, filed inrespect of the merger was materially incomplete and misleading.The complaint purports to seek, among other things, injunctiverelief, money damages and attorney's and expert fees and expenses.The complaint contains both direct class action claims as well asindirect shareholder derivative claims.

On November 6, 2016, the parties to the Solak lawsuit reached anagreement in principle as to a memorandum of understanding withrespect to a proposed settlement of the Solak lawsuit, pursuant towhich the parties have agreed, among other things, that theCompany will make certain supplemental disclosures related to theproposed merger.

The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required tosupplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws; however, toavoid the risk that the Ohio court could issue an injunction inconnection with the Solak lawsuit, which would delay or otherwiseadversely affect the completion of the proposed merger, AFG andthe Company decided to make the Supplemental Disclosures. TheSupplemental Disclosures amend and supplement the disclosurescontained in the Proxy Statement and should be read in conjunctionwith the disclosures contained in the Proxy Statement, whichshould be read in its entirety.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties willenter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation ofsettlement contemplated by the parties will be subject tocustomary conditions, including court approval following notice tothe Company's shareholders. In the event that the parties enterinto a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled atwhich the United States District Court for the Northern Districtof Ohio (Eastern Division) will consider the fairness,reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlementis finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release allclaims that were or could have been brought in any actionschallenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the MergerAgreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. Termsof settlement will be disclosed to shareholders of the Companyprior to final approval of the settlement. In connection with thesettlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel willfile a petition with the court for an award of attorneys' fees andexpenses to be paid by the Company or its successor, which thedefendants may oppose. There can be no assurance that the partieswill ultimately enter into a memorandum of understanding orstipulation of settlement or that the Ohio court will approve thesettlement even if the parties were to enter into suchstipulation.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putativeclass action's first amended complaint was filed on February 11,2016, against Neiman Marcus in the Superior Court of California,Orange County, by Holly Attia and seven other named plaintiffs.They allege claims for failure to pay overtime wages, failure toprovide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse businessexpenses, failure to timely pay wages due at termination andfailure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. ThePlaintiffs seek to certify a class of all nonexempt employees ofthe Company in California since December 31, 2011.

The appellate case is captioned as Holly Attia, et al. v. TheNeiman Marcus Group LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56712, in the UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- Transcript must be ordered by December 16, 2016;

-- Transcript is due on March 16, 2017;

-- Appellants Does and The Neiman Marcus Group LLC's opening brief is due on April 25, 2017;

NOBILIS HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Schott" Securities Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Nobilis Health Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case styledSchott v. Nobilis Health Corp., et al., is dismissed withprejudice.

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2014 annualfinancial statements and 2015 first and second quarter interimfinancial statements, one complaint, Schott v. Nobilis HealthCorp., et al., was filed in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Texas against the Company, its formerchief executive officer and its current chief financial officer.The complaint sought class action status on behalf of theCompany's shareholders and alleges violations of Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out ofthe restatement.

The defendants vigorously defended against these claims and filedmotions to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to pleadparticularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter onthe part of the individual defendants. On June 1, 2016, the courtheard oral arguments on the Company's pending motion to dismisswhich the court later granted on September 29, 2016. The courtultimately dismissed the case with prejudice on October 24, 2016.

Nobilis Health Corp. was incorporated on March 16, 2007, under thename "Northstar Healthcare Inc." pursuant to the provisions of theBritish Columbia Business Corporations Act. On December 5, 2014,Northstar Healthcare Inc. changed its name to Nobilis Health Corp.The Company owns and manages health care facilities in the Statesof Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgerycenters and acute-care surgical hospitals.

NOBILIS HEALTH: Defends "Capelli" Securities Class Suit in Canada-----------------------------------------------------------------Nobilis Health Corp. is defending a putative class action lawsuitfiled by Vince Capelli in Canada, according to the Company's Form10-Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2016.

A statement of claim (complaint), Vince Capelli v. Nobilis HealthCorp. et al., was filed on January 8, 2016, in the OntarioSuperior Court of Justice under court file number CV-16-544173naming Nobilis Health Corp., certain current and former officersand the Company's former auditors as defendants. The statement ofclaim seeks to advance claims on behalf of the plaintiff and onbehalf of a class comprised of certain of the Company'sshareholders related to, among other things, alleged certainviolations of the Ontario Securities Act and seeks damages in theamount of C$80 million plus interest.

The Company says the defendants intend to vigorously defendagainst these claims. At this time the Company believes thelikelihood of loss, if any, is remote.

Nobilis Health Corp. was incorporated on March 16, 2007, under thename "Northstar Healthcare Inc." pursuant to the provisions of theBritish Columbia Business Corporations Act. On December 5, 2014,Northstar Healthcare Inc. changed its name to Nobilis Health Corp.The Company owns and manages health care facilities in the Statesof Texas and Arizona, consisting primarily of ambulatory surgerycenters and acute-care surgical hospitals.

North Shore University Hospital, located at 300 Community Drive,Manhasset, New York, is an 806-bed hospital with a staff of over3,000 physicians where Collymore and Malik worked as registerednurses. They claim to be denied overtime pay for overtime hoursduring their 13th shift.

NOVARTIS PHARMA: Restrains Gleevec Availability, Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------RXDN Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situatedv. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novartis AG, and NovartisCorporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-12399 (D. Mass., November 23, 2016),is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawfuldelay of generic entry into the U.S. market for Gleevec (imatinibmesylate).

Gleevec is an FDA-approved prescription drug that radicallyimproves the lives of the thousands of patients suffering chronicmyeloid leukemia (CML), a cancer of the blood and bone marrow.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company which maintains aglobal research headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

OK FOODS: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Cato" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------OK Foods, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuittitled Darrell Cato, et al. v. OK Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02202-PKH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofArkansas - Ft. Smith.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the originallawsuit, Case No. CV-16-00679, was removed from the Circuit Courtof Sebastian County, Arkansas, to the District Court. In theircomplaint, the Plaintiffs contend that the action is filed forunpaid donning and doffing. The Plaintiffs are hourly productionemployees at O.K. Foods' Fort Smith food processing andmanufacturing plants. They allege that OK Foods' employees arenot paid for approximately six to seven hours per week they spendworking, and they bring the action to receive the wages they areowed.

The appellate case is captioned as Darrell Cato, et al. v. OKFoods, Inc., Case No. 16-8023, in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit.

ON DECK CAPITAL: IPO-Related Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed-------------------------------------------------------------The consolidated case arising from On Deck Capital, Inc.'s initialpublic offering was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as toall parties, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

Two separate putative class actions were filed in August 2015 inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork against the Company, certain of its executive officers, itsdirectors and certain or all of the underwriters of its initialpublic offering. The suits allege that the registration statementand prospectus for the Company's initial public offering containedmaterially false and misleading statements regarding, or failed todisclose, certain information in violation of the Securities Actof 1933, as amended. The suits seek a determination that the caseis a proper class action and/or certification of the plaintiff asa class representative, rescission or a rescissory measure ofdamages and/or unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees andother fees and costs.

On February 18, 2016, the court issued an order (1) consolidatingthe two cases, (2) selecting the lead plaintiff and (3) appointinglead class counsel. On March 18, 2016, the lead plaintiff filedan amended complaint. In accordance with the court approvedschedule for the case as modified by the court, on June 13, 2016we filed a motion to dismiss the case and on September 9, 2016,the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice ofvoluntary dismissal of the consolidated cases without prejudice asto all parties, which was so ordered by the court on Sept. 28,2016.

On Deck Capital, Inc., provides financing to small businesseslocated throughout the United States, as well as in Canada andAustralia, through term loans and lines of credit. The Companyuses technology and analytics to aggregate data about a businessand then quickly and efficiently analyzes the creditworthiness ofthe business using its proprietary credit-scoring model.

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Filing of Brief in "Colley" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., awaits filing of lead plaintiff'sappellant opening brief in the consolidated securities case,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2016.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filedagainst the Company and certain of the Company's officers in theUnited States District Court, for the Southern District ofCalifornia, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The followingday, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed inthe same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantzv. Orexigen, et al ., asserting substantially similar claims. OnJune 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed alead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed aconsolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports toassert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company'sstock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges thatdefendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleadingstatements regarding the interim results and termination of theLight Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecifiedamount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctiverelief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss theconsolidated complaint. On May 19, 2016, the District Courtgranted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of theconsolidated complaint with prejudice and portions withoutprejudice. The Court granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file anamended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissedwith prejudice. On June 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice ofintent not to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly toan appeal of the Court's decision dismissing the consolidatedcomplaint. As a result, the court entered judgment dismissing theconsolidated complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. Leadplaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals on July 26, 2016. Lead plaintiff's opening brief is dueon December 2, 2016.

Although management believes that this appeal lacks merit andintends to defend against it vigorously, the Company says thereare uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Companycannot predict the outcome. At this time, the Company is unable toestimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result fromsuch legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts inconnection with such legal proceedings other than ongoingattorney's fees.

Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical companyfocused on the treatment of obesity. The Company's sole product,Contrave, is approved in the United States by the U.S. Food andDrug Administration as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet andincreased physical activity for chronic weight management inadults with an initial body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater(obese), or 27 kg/m2 or greater (overweight) in the presence of atleast one weight-related comorbid condition.

PACIFIC COAST: Final Hearing on "Welch" Suit Deal Set for March 2-----------------------------------------------------------------A hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of thesettlement in the lawsuit filed by Thomas Welch is set forMarch 2, 2017, Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against theTrust and other defendants and states that the claims are made onbehalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquiredTrust securities pursuant or traceable to the registrationstatement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and theprospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement thatbecame effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and theprospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that theplaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims underthe Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registrationstatements contained numerous untrue statements of material factsand omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks classcertification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission oncertain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgmentinterest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Courtmay deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, filed a second putative classaction complaint in the Superior Court of California, County ofLos Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific CoastEnergy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLCand others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims andmakes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as aremade in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch andBerliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle theconsolidation action, and the Court entered an order grantingpreliminary approval of the settlement on September 14, 2016. Ahearing to determine whether to grant final approval of thesettlement and enter final judgment in this action is set forMarch 2, 2017.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC againstany liability or expense it might incur in connection with theconsolidation action.

The Pacific Coast Oil Trust is a statutory trust formed in January2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a TrustAgreement among its sponsor, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, astrustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., asTrustee, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as DelawareTrustee. The Trust was created to acquire and hold Net profitsinterest and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gasproperties located in California for the benefit of the Trustunitholders pursuant to an agreement among PCEC, the Trustee andthe Delaware Trustee.

PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Lee" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit styled Philip Lee, on behalf of allothers similarly situated v. PetroQuest Energy, LLC and WSGP GasProducing, LLC, Case No. 16-CJ-51, was removed from the HughesCounty District Court to the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assignedCase No. 6:16-cv-00516-KEW to the proceeding.

PetroQuest Energy, LLC operates an energy company engaged in theexploration, development and production of oil and gas reserves inTexas and Louisiana.

RAWLINGS CO: Wurtz Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff Meghan Wurtz filed an appeal from a District Courtorder, dated November 17, 2016, relating to the lawsuit titledWurtz v. The Rawlings Company, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-1182, in theU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (CentralIslip).

The appellate case is captioned as Wurtz v. The Rawlings Company,LLC, Case No. 16-3911, in the United States Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on July 31,2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered adecision that New York State's anti-subrogation law, whichextinguished the rights of private health insurers to seekreimbursement for medical benefits paid out of a tort settlement,was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) and that the law was found applicable to health insurersproviding ERISA coverage.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in New York StateSupreme Court but was removed by Defendants to federal court wherethe District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss forfailure to state a claim based on ERISA preemption. On appeal,the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the DistrictCourt's decision and remanded the matter to the District Court inholding that the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to completeERISA preemption. The Supreme Court's decision to decline to hearDefendants' appeal of the Court of Appeal's decision allows forthe class action lawsuit to proceed. The class action allegesviolations of New York State's anti-subrogation law by insurerswho recovered for medical benefits paid on behalf of injuredplaintiffs from their tort settlements. (Meghan Wurtz, MindyBurnovski, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, v. The Rawlings Company, LLC, Oxford Health Plans(N.Y.), Inc., UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Defendants; No. 13-1695-cv; in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit).

Rosa Romero performed work for Defendants as a non-exempt employeefrom June 2011 through April 2015. The Plaintiff worked in excessof 40 hours per week and was paid at an hourly rate ofapproximately $600 weekly, but was not paid at the proper overtimerate.

REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Moved from D. Ariz. to S.D. Tex.--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES TAYLOR, Individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02760,was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District ofArizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofTexas (Corpus Christi). The Texas Southern District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00502 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members alleged thatRepublic failed to pay the proper amount of overtime in accordancewith the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the three-year periodpreceding the filing of this complaint and through the finaldisposition of this matter.

RINGCENTRAL INC: Supply Pro Amends Complaint in TCPA Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC, has filed an amended complaint in itslawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct, RingCentral, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS) filed a putativeclass action against the Company in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of California (Court), allegingcommon law conversion and violations of the federal TelephoneConsumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax cover sheets usedby the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissionsover the Company's system (Lawsuit). SPS sought statutorydamages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connectionwith its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damagesin connection with its conversion claim.

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for ExpeditedDeclaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission(FCC), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certainportions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in theLawsuit (Petition). On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motionto dismiss the Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateralmotion to dismiss or stay the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCCon the Company's Petition.

On October 7, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion todismiss and gave SPS 20 days to amend its complaint. The Courtconcurrently dismissed the Company's motion to dismiss or stay asmoot. SPS filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016,alleging the same theories and claims.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself andanticipates filing another motion to dismiss and a collateralmotion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of the FCCPetition. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it istoo early in this proceeding to predict the outcome of thisLawsuit. Based on the information known by the Company as of thedate of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable tothe preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financialstatements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount ofany such loss or range of loss that may occur.

RingCentral, Inc., is a provider of software-as-a-service (SaaS)solutions for business communications and collaboration. TheCompany was incorporated in California in 1999 and wasreincorporated in Delaware on September 26, 2013.

RITMO LATINO: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT-------------------------------------------------------------Juan Carlos Ballesteros, an individual, on behalf of himself andothers similarly situated v. Ritmo Latino Wireless LLC and Does 1to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642298 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29,2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company is the parent company to the luxuryhotel chain, The Ritz-Carlton Hotels. Ritz-Carlton operates 91luxury hotels and resorts in cities around the world and resortsin 30 countries and territories.

SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Oklahoma Court Reopens Lanier Trust Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The purported class action lawsuit filed by Duane & VirginiaLanier Trust was reopened allowing the plaintiffs to pursue theirclaims against the non-debtor defendants, and against SandRidgeEnergy, Inc., as a nominal defendant only, according to SandRidgeMississippian Trust I's Form 10-Q filing with the Securities andExchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2016.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf ofitself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Courtfor the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidgeand certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). Thecomplaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalfof a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trustin or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidgeMississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial publicoffering on or about April 17, 2012. The claims are based onallegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and formerofficers and directors, among other defendants, including theTrust are responsible for making false and misleading statements,and omitting material information, concerning a variety ofsubjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seekclass certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initialpublic offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plusinterest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, the Court entered an Administrative Closing Orderterminating the action, without prejudice to the rights of theparties to reopen the proceeding for good cause shown, withinthirty days after the termination of SandRidge's bankruptcyproceedings.

On October 27, 2016, the Court entered an order reopening thisproceeding and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue their claimsagainst the non-debtor defendants, and against SandRidge as anominal defendant only.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust says it mayincur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expensesmay increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly.The Trust will estimate and financially provide for potentiallosses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that suchlosses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significantjudgment will be required in making any such estimates and anyfinal liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materiallydifferent than any estimates. The Trust is currently unable toassess the probability of loss or estimate a range of anypotential loss the Trust may incur in connection with theSecurities Litigation, and has not established any reservesrelating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withholdestimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costsassociated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trusthas not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnitiesthat may be applicable or any claims it may make in connectionwith the Securities Litigation.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed underthe Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, asamended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., asTrustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., asTrustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.The Trust holds Royalty Interests in specified oil and natural gasproperties located in the Mississippian formation in Alfalfa,Garfield, Grant and Woods counties in Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff, and other workers like him, worked for Defendantperforming largely manual labor type job duties, typically workedin excess of 40 hours a week, and worked as Measurement WhileDrilling (MWD) employees. In violation of the PMWA, the Ohio Acts,and the FLSA, SLB denied overtime to all of its oilfieldemployees.

Schlumberger provides technology for reservoir characterization,drilling, production, and processing to the oil and gas industry.

SQUARE INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "White" Civil Rights Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Robert E. White filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuitstyled Robert White v. Square, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04539-JST,in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Francisco.

The lawsuit alleges violation of Civil Rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert White v. Square, Inc.,Case No. 16-17137, in the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 29, 2016;

-- Appellant Robert E. White's opening brief is due on March 1, 2017;

-- Appellee Square, Inc.'s answering brief is due on March 31, 2017; and

-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT E. WHITE, an individual, and all otherssimilarly situated, is represented by:

TELENAV INC: Defends "Gergetz" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA---------------------------------------------------------------Telenav, Inc., is defending a putative class action lawsuitinitiated by Nathan Gergetz, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Nathan Gergetz filed a putative class actioncomplaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, alleging that Telenav violated the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, or TCPA. The complaint purports to be filed onbehalf of a class, and it alleges that Telenav caused unsolicitedtext messages to be sent to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 toJuly 26, 2016. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages underthe TCPA law, attorneys' fees and costs of the action, and aninjunction to prevent any future violations.

Due to the preliminary nature of this matter and uncertaintiesrelating to litigation, the Company says it is unable at this timeto estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financialcondition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Telenav, Inc., was incorporated in September 1999 in the state ofDelaware. The Company provides connected car and location-basedplatform services. The Company's automotive and mobile navigationplatform allows it to deliver enhanced location-based services toauto manufacturers, developers, and end users through variousdistribution channels.

TENET HEALTHCARE: "Pennington" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Tex.----------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Nicholas Pennington, individually,and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Trevor Fetter, Daniel J Cancelmi,and Biggs C Porter, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07510, wastransferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central Districtof California, to the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas (Dallas). The Northern District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03260-G to the proceeding. The case isassigned to Senior Judge A. Joe Fish.

Tenet Healthcare is a multinational investor-owned healthcareservices company based in Dallas, Texas.

TESORO REFINING: Faces "Soratorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT--------------------------------------------------------------Onofre Soratorio, an individual, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company,LLC, BP Pipelines North America, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,inclusive, Case No. BC642295 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 29, 2016),is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtimewages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide third-party logistical and oil refiningservices, which include but are not limited to oil refiningservices, distribution services, as well as logistic services forinventory management, pickup and shipping/transportation services.

Theranos is a private life-sciences company that claimed toinnovative methods for drawing and testing blood and interpretingpatient data to improve outcomes and lower health care costs.However, Defendants later admit that Theranos was relying ontraditional machines made by other companies to run blood tests,rather than using its own proprietary analyzers. October 5, 2016,Theranos announced it was closing all of its clinical laboratoriesand patient testing centers and laying off approximately 40% ofits employees.

Colman purchased Theranos securities in September 2013 through amember interest in Lucas Venture Group XI, LLC, and lostsubstantially.

TRI-STATE WATER: Home Depot Appeals Decision in "Bauer" Suit------------------------------------------------------------Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Incorporated, filed an appeal from acourt ruling in the lawsuit titled Michael Bauer and Stacey Bauer,individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc., Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc., HomeDepot U.S.A., Inc., and Aquion Inc. doing business as: Rainsoft,Case No. 3:16-cv-00419-MJR-RJD, in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Illinois.

The appellate case is captioned as Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc.v. Home Depot U.S.A., Incorporate, et al., Case No. 16-3938, inthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit wasoriginally filed in the Madison County Court (Case No. 15-SC-1407), and was removed from the District Court. Home Depotpreviously filed an appeal from a ruling in the lawsuit.

On Sept. 29, 2016, Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan entered an ordergranting Defendants'/Counterclaim Plaintiffs' motion to remand,and remanded the case to the Third Judicial Circuit, MadisonCounty, Illinois. The Court construed Counterclaim Defendant HomeDepot's motion to strike as an unacceptable sur-reply and orderedthat motion stricken. The judge said all future hearings in thismatter, including the January 12, 2018 final pre-trial conferenceand the January 29, 2018 jury trial are cancelled.

In view of Home Depot's first appeal, Judge Reagan on Oct. 17entered an order staying the remand order pending receipt of thePlaintiffs' brief and an ultimate decision on the request to stay.

TWILIO INC: Discovery in "Flowers" Privacy Class Suit Ongoing-------------------------------------------------------------Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit commenced by Angela Flowers inCalifornia, according to Twilio Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filedin the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitledAngela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that theCompany's products permit the interception, recording anddisclosure of communications at a customer's request and are inviolation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaintseeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On May 27,2016, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint. On August 2,the court issued an order denying the demurrer in part and grantedit in part, with leave to amend by August 18, 2016 to address anyclaims under California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffopted not to amend the complaint.

Discovery has already begun, and will continue until August 2017,when the plaintiff must file their motion for class certification.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit andbelieves it has meritorious defenses to each. The Company addsthat it is too early in these matters to reasonably predict theprobability of the outcomes or to estimate ranges of possiblelosses.

Twilio Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 2008. TheCompany provides a Cloud Communications Platform that enablesdevelopers to build, scale and operate communications withinsoftware applications through the cloud primarily as a pay-as-you-go service. The Company's product offerings fit three basiccategories: Programmable Voice, Programmable Messaging andProgrammable Video. The Company also provides use case products,such as a two-factor authentication solution.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Plans to Seek Rehearing in Securities Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2016, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that it plans to file apetition for rehearing in connection with the Ninth Circuit'sruling in the consolidated securities lawsuit.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits werefiled in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain ofits officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initialpublic offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. OnJanuary 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidatedcomplaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting amotion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following theplaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit withprejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and theother defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, theplaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of thecourt.

The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 10, 2016. OnOctober 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion,reaffirming the district court's dismissal of the allegedviolation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and reversing the district court's dismissal of thealleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of1933.

The Company plans to file a petition for rehearing with the NinthCircuit and to vigorously defend itself against these claims. TheCompany says there can be no assurance that the Company willprevail. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss,if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation.

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Rabbiner" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment-----------------------------------------------------------------Marvin Rabbiner, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Unitedhealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Unitedhealthcare Inc., UnitedhealthcareInsurance Company, Optum, Inc., and Optumrx, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-03996 (D. Minn., November 23, 2016), is an action for damagesas a result of the Defendants' practice of collecting from thedispensing pharmacy the portion of the patient's required"copayment" ("copay") or "coinsurance" payment that is notnecessary to cover the cost of the prescription drug.

The Defendants operate a healthcare company that offers a spectrumof insurance and medical products and services.

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Watson" Suit Over Coinsurance Payment---------------------------------------------------------------Donna Watson, for herself and all others similarly situated v.Optumrx, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, and Does 1-10,inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-02106 (C.D. Cal., November 23, 2016),is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practiceof collecting from the dispensing pharmacy the portion of thepatient's required "copayment" ("copay") or "coinsurance" paymentthat is not necessary to cover the cost of the prescription drug.

Optumrx, Inc. is a pharmacy benefits manager with its principalplace of business in Irvine, California.

United Healthcare Insurance Company operates a healthcare companythat offers a spectrum of insurance and medical products andservices.

UNITED STATES: Sued in Fla. Over Improper Charges of PACER Access-----------------------------------------------------------------THEODORE D'APUZZO, P.A., Individually and on Behalf of AllOthers Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62769-RNS (S.D. Fla.,Nov. 22, 2016), seeks return of all funds improperly paid,exacted, or taken from them in contravention of the E-GovernmentAct and related policies and procedures.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of users of thePublic Access to Court Electronic Records system (PACER), anelectronic system employed by federal courts to provide the publicwith access to court records, who were improperly charged toaccess judicial opinions.

According to the plain language of PACER'S Electronic PublicAccess Fee Schedule, available at PACER's websitehttps://www.pacer.gov/ (Fee Schedule), "No fee is charged foraccess to judicial opinions". That is, PACER users are meant tohave free access to judicial opinions. The policy, which has beenin place since at least 2005, stems from an explicit directivecontained in the E-Government Act of 2002, the law that gave riseto PACER, requiring all federal courts, including district andbankruptcy courts, to provide [a]ccess to the substance of allwritten opinions issued by the court.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of NorthAmerica, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending thenation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

UNITED STATES: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------------David M. Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling in thelawsuit entitled David Johnson v. Jacob Lew, et al., Case No.1:14-cv-02233, in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as David Johnson v. Jacob Lew, etal., Case No. 16-3907, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

-- Transcript information sheet was due by November 29, 2016; and

-- Fee or In Forma Pauperis forms were due on November 29, 2016, for Appellant David M. Johnson.

The Seventh Circuit Court Clerk stated that the following arethose parties to this cause as reflected on the District Courtdocket, yet are not reflected on the Appellate docket/caption foradministrative purposes: APPELLEES: James M. Johnson, Lynn Ganz,Patrick Wozek, Fred Savaglio, Robert Trzakus, Darlene Mcvey andUnknown Defendants.

WEIGHT WATCHERS: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Roberts" Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff Raymond M. Roberts filed an appeal from the DistrictCourt's opinion and order, dated November 12, 2016, and theDistrict Court's judgment, dated November 14, 2016, entered in thelawsuit entitled Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.,Case No. 16-cv-913, in the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, on Jan. 7,2016, the Plaintiff, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative classaction complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of NewYork, New York County, asserting class claims for breach ofcontract and violations of the New York General Business Law. OnFebruary 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the DistrictCourt. On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amendedcomplaint, alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches inthe Company's Web site and app in November and December 2015, theCompany has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with itsOnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts andpractices in violation of Section 350 of the New York GeneralBusiness Law. The Plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual,punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees andcosts incurred in connection with this action.

The appellate case is captioned as Roberts v. Weight WatchersInternational, Inc., Case No. 16-3865, in the United States Courtof Appeals for the Second Circuit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay him timeand one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40during each seven-day workweek. Specifically, Defendant failed toinclude all remuneration required by the FLSA in calculatingPlaintiff and Collective Action Members' regular rates of pay,and, consequently, their overtime rate of pay. Moreover, Defendantrequired Plaintiff and Collective Action Members to work time forwhich they were not compensated.

Wells Fargo is a provider of banking, mortgage, investing, creditcard, and insurance services.

WELLS FARGO: McDonald Appeals From W.D. Pa. Ruling to 3rd Circuit-----------------------------------------------------------------Liane McDonald, in her capacity as the administratrix of theestate of Patricia A. McDonald, deceased, filed an appeal from acourt ruling in the lawsuit entitled Liane McDonald v. Wells FargoBank, N.A., Case No. 2-16-cv-00264, in the U.S. District Court forthe Western District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case wasremoved from the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County tothe District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Liane McDonald v. Wells FargoBank, N.A., Case No. 16-4144, in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant LIANE MCDONALD, IN HER CAPACITY AS THEADMINIATRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA A. MCDONALD, DECEASED,AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS(the "MCDonald Estate"), is represented by:

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.